I once read a comment in an old book that Samisch was the only
master who had more than one opening system named after him
(variations in the Nimzo- and King's Indian). I think that wasn't
strictly true even then, but now there are many masters with
opening namesakes. Pianist and Grandmaster Mark Taimanov has given
to the chess world two prominent variations: in the Nimzo-Indian,
the line 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 Nc6!?
beloved of English master Michael Franklin, and in the Sicilian,
the line 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3
a6 , usually followed by Taimanov's trademark
...Nge7

I thought both variations very odd when I first came across
them: unnatural and awkward. But of course GM Taimanov sees a
little deeper behind these moves than folks like me, so I've been
following in his footsteps and trying to find out a bit more about
what he saw in his line of the Sicilian.

My motive to do so now was curiosity, piqued by a few prompts in
the last couple of years:

Having a privileged trawl through some of Bob Lee's games, in
which the Taimanov Sicilian featured strongly. (Bob approached 200
grade strength playing for Exeter in the 1970s, but his real forte
was correspondence chess: read all about it!).

Buying a copy of Nunn's Chess Openings , and, along
with a thumbs-up to several other variations which I had always
thought a bit duff theoretically, like the Stonewall Dutch, one
line of the Sicilian that was doing well was the Taimanov
Sicilian.

Looking for an answer to the Grand Prix Attack as Black in the
Sicilian, I came across a try which seemed to leave White nothing
better than to transpose into a line of the Taimanov. Black
equalised with some exotic-looking manoeuvres in Lein - Ivanovic
[B23] Lone Pine, 1980

A growing dissatisfaction with the way I've been playing the
Sicilian after 2. Nf3. I've played the Hyper-Accelerated Fianchetto
for a lot of years (mixed in with some other stuff) but I think my
interpretation of the variation has been a bit straightforward and
it often leads to positions I find hard to play. So, I'd like to
try something else, and I have devoted a bit of the summer break to
researching the Taimanov.

Taimanov himself generally refers to lines with an early ...Qc7
as the "(Improved) Paulsen" ( Sicilian Paulsen , Batsford
1984; Sicilian Defence Taimanov System , Batsford 1989,
and Winning with the Sicilian , Batsford 1991), and this
has been the most important at master level. So, Plaskett's
introductory book on the line for Chess Press includes mostly games
with ...Qc7. The strategy which is most characteristic of the line,
and of which Taimanov was most keen to claim under his name, are
the lines with ...Nge7.

Black can play his moves in many different orders, and, as so
often in Modern openings, slide out into other variations
entirely.

It's generally agreed that the Taimanov starts with

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 or

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6

Nunn and co. include under Taimanov the lines

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3 a6
and 6...Qc7

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3 a6
and 6...Nge7

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nb5 d6 6.
c4

The related Kan Sicilian (without ...Nc6) is the move order:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 ,
followed often by 5.Nc3 Qc7

The position reached after the first four moves of this move
order is printed on a Chess Digest booklet entitled " Sicilian:
Kann/Paulsen-Taimanov

So... the Kan is e6 and Qc7 without Nc6, Taimanov is e6/Nc6
without Qc7, and e6/Nc6/Qc7 is what Taimanov calls Improved Paulsen
and almost everyone else calls Taimanov. (Nf6 and d6 at any stage
will get you into a Scheveningen.)

If its possible to put this modern GM opening in a nutshell,
it's that Black intends to develop the Queen's-side quickly, with
moves like ...b5, ...Bb7, ...Rc8, ...Qc7 and so on. You sometimes
see the complete mobilisation of the Black Queen's-side forces
before a single King's-side piece is touched (Leko's
favourite).

The Black d-Pawn is kept back on d7. This enables Black to make
a more aggressive posting of the King's Bishop, on c5 or b4, for
example, and can also allow the Black Queen on c7 more scope.

Black hopes that the hole on d6 will take too much time and
effort for White to occupy with any effect. While Black is staking
out some space on the Queen's-side, he does not want to make a
target of the King's-side.

The King's Knight is kept away from f6 for the early moves, not
encouraging Pawn prods like e4-e5 or g4-g5, and may even go to e7.
From there, it may go on to g6, covering the King's-side, but the
other cunning plan is for Black to 'unload' a Knight with
...Nc6xd4, and then ...Ne7-c6, gaining time to unravel. With such
an exchange of pieces, Black's typical Sicilian cramp is less, and
White has fewer prospects of attack.

(Wittmann,W - Klinger,J AUT-ch (3), 1993 (0-1, 57))

Plaskett comments:

"This is almost exactly what Black aims for in this
system:
a standard Sicilian middle-game but where the reduction in material
lessens the danger of White commencing a successful attack. (...)
In this very standard position Black can face the future with total
confidence."

This of course could have arisen from the Grand Prix line
above.

Taimanov's line has been played for decades and remains
important, having been played in its various forms by many top
players, including champions Tal, Fischer and Karpov, occasionally
Kasparov, and a host of others like Andersson, Benjamin, Bronstein,
Christiansen, Larsen, Portisch, Ribli, Sokolov, Suetin and Timman.
The old Paulsen formation has been played by just about
everybody!

After what I'm calling the Paulsen/Taimanov move order:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3
a6

White has a big choice: 6. Be2, 6. Be3, 6. Nxc6
, and 6. g3 are most often played, but you get
6. f46. Bf4 and 6.
Bc4 occasionally.

According to Plaskett, Bill Hartston once wrote, 'all true
Taimanov players should be aiming to be playing ...Nge7' ,
although Soapy Jim in his own practice seems to prefer the Paulsen
method with an early ...Qc7. In fact, most people do – the
lines with ...Nge7 get only three rows in NCO, while ...Qc7 gets
three pages!

It's still a rich position, not yet exhausted. White's main
tries are: Nb3, O-O, Be3, f4 and Bf4, most of which are dismissed
in NCO with the assessment "=". It's only "=" if you know what
you're doing, though!

Let's see the Taimanov method in action. This is a game from his
1989 book for Batsford on the system, and the notes are based on
his:

If Black has made the unnatural move ...Nge7 planning
...Ncxd4/...Nec6, can White take advantage of this? Perhaps by
dodging the exchange with 7.Nb3 or 7.
Nf3. Black must not sit by and get squashed, but must keep
White off-balance.

[DIAGRAM]

i.e. the weak spot on d6. This can be strong plan and may give a
pretty prospectless game for Black (White's statistics in this line
are impressive), but Taimanov doesn't usually have much trouble
holding the position, e.g.

This is a good Grandmaster move, flexible and keeping the edge
(5. g3 can be met by 5...d5!=). Taimanov gives a fine game in his
Batsford books:

Mnatsakanian,E - Taimanov,M [B46] Erevan, 1986

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3 a6 6.g3
Nge7

White has a lot of choice here: Nde2, f4, Be3, Nb3 and the
simple Bg2.

7.Bg2 Nxd4 8.Qxd4 Nc6 9.Qd1 Be7 10.0-0 0-0 11.Be3 b5
12.f4 Bb7 13.Qe2

Despite White's undynamic start the first impression is that
White is doing well (more space, better development, pressure down
the d-file and prospects on the King's-side). But Black is solid
and has his own chances on the Queen's-side - chances he makes full
use of! Black's play is typical and exemplary:

13...Rc8 14.Qf2?! Na5!? 15.Nd1

[15.Bb6 Qxb6!? (15...Qe8!) 16.Qxb6 Bc5+]

15...Nc4 16.Bd4 f6!

[DIAGRAM]

Black is playing a careful game, adeptly combining attack and
defence.

17.c3 e5 18.Ba7 Qc7 19.Kh1 Bc6!?

[DIAGRAM]

20.Be3 Qb7!? 21.Qc2 d5!

[DIAGRAM]

The Sicilian player's delight is a central break.

22.exd5 Bxd5 23.Bxd5+ Qxd5+ 24.Qg2 Rfd8

[DIAGRAM]

Black is on top.

25.fxe5? Qxg2+ 26.Kxg2 Rxd1 0-1

Not all your games with the Taimanov will be so smooth!

More typical is restraint with Nb3 and a4, which, if Black
doesn't organise any counterplay, can be very effective:

De Firmian,N - Zapata,A [B46] Tunis (12), 1985

Taimanov gives this as "equal" (1989) or "comfortable" (1991),
but gives the whole game in the back of the 1989 book, making it
look like an absolute crush for White, Black being unable to
organise any counterplay with his awkwardly placed pieces. Whatever
the real verdict here, it's still a pretty passive line for Black,
and I'd like to find an idea to brighten it up a little. Perhaps
Black cannot really hope to equalise with ...Nge7 and must play the
Paulsen move ...Qc7.

After 6...Nge7, White often plays the 7.Nb3 seen above, so
Plaskett has recommended 6...Nxd4 as played by Wilder, but after 7.
Qxd4 Ne7 8. Bf4 Nc6 9. Qd2 White has organised his pieces better
than usual. Still, it's a game.

Our Government is always going on about traditional British
values, which I have always thought of as class prejudice and
self-loathing. In chess terms, perhaps the distinctive British
value is an aptitude for deceptively simple attacking opening
systems.

I can think of several recent examples of home-grown openings
that have gained a wide currency – the Penrose Benoni, the
DERLD, the Grand Prix Attack, the Trompovsky, the 150 Attack in the
Pirc, and the English Attack in the main line Sicilians. This was
pioneered by top GMs Nunn and Short, and involves playing an attack
with Be3 and Qd2, usually with f3. If you know the Yugoslav Attack
against the Dragon, you'll know the White moves.

This is a bit of a theoretical minefield at the moment. You can
play into one of the current main lines of the Scheveningen/
Najdorf, which Kasparov is currently handling comfortably as
Black:

[DIAGRAM] Plaskett notes 8...Ne5!?, 8...Bb4!?, 8...d5!?,
8...Nxd4 and even Fernand Gobet's 7...Nxd4 as
workable replies making various uses of the Taimanov move-order. A
more orthodox Taimanov strategy (with an early ...b5) is also
playable:

Can you play the pure Taimanov, 6. Be3 Nge7?
Of
course you can, and Taimanov has, but it's nothing like so popular
a try, since Black knows that the Queen will have a good retreat
square after 'unloading'. He gives:

Leconte,J - Appleberry,M [B46] Paris Apsap Sept (4), 1993

The Maroczy bind, with White Pawns on e4 and c4, is a key test
of any Sicilian line in which it can be applied. The immediate 5.c4
is a bit slow, and players in the days of Nimzovitch and Tarrasch
showed that Black is well-placed to react to it with ...Nf6 and
...Bb4. But a preliminary 5.Nb5 is a significant strengthening of
the strategy, forcing ...d6, stopping ...Bb4 and avoiding
exchanges. It has been an occasional weapon of Karpov against a
line he's played himself, and Karpov, as always, makes the line
look like a smooth White win. He maintains the spatial edge,
gradually pushing Black back and finally striking hard on the
Queen's-side, after which Black's counterattack looks
desperate.

Current thinking on the line is that it's not that good for
White. The offside Knight on a3 is a significant cost and Black
should be able to equalise in true Hedgehog style – White
doesn't have that many obvious plans and Black should be able to
keep them under control. Gallagher in Beating the Sicilian
3 tells a sad tale; after:

Gallagher,J - Cramling,P [B44] Bern (3), 1991

[DIAGRAM] White has a good plan here of playing his g-Pawn up
from g2 to
g4 and g5, squeezing the bind and getting some heat off the e-Pawn.
But:

14...h6! Now g4 is met by ...Nh7! and ...g5!
when White must relinquish control of e5. 15.Rfd1 Qc7
16.Rac1 Rac8 17.Bf2 Rfe8 18.Rc2 Bf8 1/2-1/2

This is the idea Nunn, Gallagher and their collaborators
recommend for Black in Nunn's Chess Openings . Now, better
players than me are still playing this line for a win as White, but
White is as likely to lose the plot as Black here, typically by
over-reaching on the King's-side and getting blown up in the
middle:

Lastly, the system with Nb5 and Bf4 is still played and may
suffice for a typical White edge (NCO again). A twist noted by NCO
is White's attempt to lean on the d-Pawn, but Black can let it go
and seems to have sufficient compensation:

The line that Nunn and Gallagher actually recommended for White
in Beating the Sicilian 3 was a formation which neither
Black nor White will find familiar from elsewhere in the Sicilian,
but which French players might find to their taste.

The idea is for White to play Nxc6, and after ...bxc6, play
against Black's less flexible Pawn structure and maybe get in an
attack on the King's-side. Black often plays ...d5, hence the link
with the French. Fischer had a couple of important games with this
structure: beating Petrosian with White in 1971, a classic BvN
endgame, and holding the draw against Spassky in the decisive game
of the 1972 match.

I don't see many White endgames in this line these days in this
line, what you get is an abundance of hacks:

This line is one of the reasons Black players like to play
5...Qc7 , on, so they can recapture on c6 with the Queen (
6. Ndb5!? Qb8! and ...a6 is not a problem for Black). But
if you want to play 6...Nge7 , you've got to play
5...a6 , and if you waste another move with a Pawn
by playing 5...a6 , White might decide to play
6. Nxc6 . (Plaskett says Kamsky once jumped the
gun with 5.Nxc6 , and won.)

Now, this system is undoubtedly dangerous and has a very high
percentage of White wins. But the theoretical verdict from NCO is
quite consoling for Black, and the evergreen Taimanov shows us the
way:

Chandler Murray - Andersson Ulf [B46] Naestved, 1985

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3 a6
6.f4

This is quite an important line, but if Andersson's approach
given below is adequate, then it may become less so! Having
deprived the dark-squared Bishop of its best square on f4, White
can no longer plan to rearrange with Bf4 and Qd2 if Black unloads.
However, there is another rearrangement, of retreating the Queen to
f2, out of the way of the Bishop – which is the
Wittman-Klinger example used in the introduction. Also, this line
is where we arrive from Lein-Ivanovic, having come across from the
Grand Prix Attack.

6...Nxd4!? 7.Qxd4 b5 8.Bd3 Bb7 9.a3 Rc8 10.Bd2
Nf6

[DIAGRAM]

Typical Sicilian: Black looks horribly underdeveloped, but
White
has no obvious way through.

After 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 or 1. e4 c5
2. Nf3 e6 there is no requirement for White to play
3. d4 . There are several alternatives against
each move, including 3. c4 and 3. c3; 2...e6 often prompts 3. d3
and 3.b3. There are arguments which suggest that, say, 3. b3 is
better against 2...e6 than other second moves, although Joe
Gallagher in Beating the Anti-Sicilians once played 2...e6 hoping
to tempt the reply 3. b3...!

The Bb5 system against 2...Nc6 is a serious attempt to get
positive play against the Sicilian, which must be treated with
respect. A "Taimanov" solution might involve ...e6 and ...Nge7, as
favoured by Krasenkow.

Also, there are "Anti-Sicilian" systems, some of which can be
used to switch back into the main line Sicilian. So, the
"Chamaeleon" system with 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 and
3. Nge2 can always be used to switch back with
4. d4 , and a lot of people use 2.
Nc3 to put Black players off 2...d6
(after which they will play the f5 gambit from the Grand Prix
Attack), while after 2...Nc6 will play 3.
Nf3 and 4. d4 . I don't have very strong
opinions about all this yet: Joe Gallagher was the key reference a
while ago but is dating on the c3 Sicilian.

Some folks have been using the Taimanov move-order to get to
other Sicilians. Lev Polugaevsky is all over my database of
Taimanov Sicilians, but always switched out early on. What's the
point? Well, the most common reason is to play the Scheveningen
without having to face the Keres Attack: so,

[The latter move order loses a tempo for White over the
modern main Pelikan lines, although it was quite common at one
point. Taimanov had it in his 1971 match with Fischer, but that was
before Sveshnikov taught us all to play a quick ...a6 and
...b5.]

So this is the Taimanov: flexible, modern, not too fiercely
theoretical, looking comfortable in most lines of NCO. I fancy
giving it a try this season; I'll let you know how I get on.